From what I understand, Iran, under the deal, is allowed to enrich up to a certain percentage (well below bomb grade,) and only up to a certain amount of the uranium can be enriched. And for this privilege, Iran has a few billion in oil profits released.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 02:06 PM

From what I understand, Iran, under the deal, is allowed to enrich up to a certain percentage (well below bomb grade,) and only up to a certain amount of the uranium can be enriched. And for this privilege, Iran has a few billion in oil profits released.

Yes, that is part of the deal at least, there's a bunch of the stuff along those lines, including regular inspections of sites.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/24/iran-deal-good-bad/3691221/

Greg

11-25-2013, 02:11 PM

Yes, that is part of the deal at least, there's a bunch of the stuff along those lines, including regular inspections of sites.

And it's one step. Hopefully the first of many.

Wonder if having pressure on Karzi -to sign the BSA agreement- has anything to do with this.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 02:18 PM

And it's one step. Hopefully the first of many.

Wonder if having pressure on Karzi -to sign the BSA agreement- has anything to do with this.

Do you mean for our side or theirs?

Bunch

11-25-2013, 02:36 PM

A welcome change from the shoot first ask questions later foreign policy approach this country has had for the last 25 years.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 02:37 PM

A welcome change from the shoot first ask questions later foreign policy approach this country has had for the last 25 years.

Only 25? I'd say you're low-balling by about 35-ish years.

TJMAC77SP

11-25-2013, 04:04 PM

Actually this agreement is akin to the one made with North Korea just before they tested their second and then third nuclear weapons...............

Not so much 'shoot first ask questions later'.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 04:19 PM

I have heard some make the assertion that this may be a positive unintended consequence of our recent Syria debate, does anyone wish to support or condemn such an argument?

LogDog

11-25-2013, 05:34 PM

After 30 plus years of mistrust between Iran and the U.S. this is a good first step. The thing the agreement does give both sides six months to see how each other lives up to the terms of the agreement. If both sides live up to their requirements then further talks can possibly lead to a deal which will allow Iran access to nuclear fuel to make electricity but will keep them from making a nuclear bomb through close inspections of their nuclear facilities.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 06:16 PM

After 30 plus years of mistrust between Iran and the U.S. this is a good first step. The thing the agreement does give both sides six months to see how each other lives up to the terms of the agreement. If both sides live up to their requirements then further talks can possibly lead to a deal which will allow Iran access to nuclear fuel to make electricity but will keep them from making a nuclear bomb through close inspections of their nuclear facilities.

I'm not sure if it will entirely eliminate the potential to weaponize (which I'm sure you didn't mean it as such either), but it certainly will increase the difficulty of doing so in secret by a margin. The big thing I do like about this (and despite the earlier ambiguity of getting discussion going, I do like this development quite a bit), is now at least there seems to be a vested interest in distinguishing this between energy production and weapon making by both sides of the discussion. While there are similarities with each I personally am not offended by the notion of Iran using Nuclear Power for energy production. This development could also enhance the Western influence happening inside that country (potentially) and maybe allow them to become more economically invested in things over here. Now, as far as weapons are concerned, I never really get comfortable with the idea of a nation feeling compelled to develop WMD's to gain a sort of standing on the international scene. I don't however believe that a Nuclear Weapon-capable Iran necessarily signifies World War 3.

TJMAC77SP

11-25-2013, 07:40 PM

I'm not sure if it will entirely eliminate the potential to weaponize (which I'm sure you didn't mean it as such either), but it certainly will increase the difficulty of doing so in secret by a margin. The big thing I do like about this (and despite the earlier ambiguity of getting discussion going, I do like this development quite a bit), is now at least there seems to be a vested interest in distinguishing this between energy production and weapon making by both sides of the discussion. While there are similarities with each I personally am not offended by the notion of Iran using Nuclear Power for energy production. This development could also enhance the Western influence happening inside that country (potentially) and maybe allow them to become more economically invested in things over here. Now, as far as weapons are concerned, I never really get comfortable with the idea of a nation feeling compelled to develop WMD's to gain a sort of standing on the international scene. I don't however believe that a Nuclear Weapon-capable Iran necessarily signifies World War 3.

No since we haven't all be incinerated by North Korea so far but I do worry about Israel's reaction to a nuclear Iran and can't get myself overly worked up about their fears. This is a country whose official position has been Israel's elimination as a nation. Time will tell if the agreement works AND they lessen their rhetoric against Israel.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 08:36 PM

No since we haven't all be incinerated by North Korea so far but I do worry about Israel's reaction to a nuclear Iran and can't get myself overly worked up about their fears. This is a country whose official position has been Israel's elimination as a nation. Time will tell if the agreement works AND they lessen their rhetoric against Israel.

The official translation if I'm not mistaken is "regime change in Jerusalem" which can be read into in a whole slew of ways. What exactly would transpire with the millions of Israeli's in the region is another thing open to personal interpretation, for us and them. To be completely fair, rhetoric is quite similar on the other (more friendly to us) side of the argument. Either way you flip the coin, I will let Israel act in what it thinks its own best interests are. If they are in the right, well, I don't think this little deal has absolutely nullified the US capability of using force in that region of the world. If Israel is in the wrong, however, they can get themselves out of it too, if they can.

TJMAC77SP

11-25-2013, 09:01 PM

The official translation if I'm not mistaken is "regime change in Jerusalem" which can be read into in a whole slew of ways. What exactly would transpire with the millions of Israeli's in the region is another thing open to personal interpretation, for us and them. To be completely fair, rhetoric is quite similar on the other (more friendly to us) side of the argument. Either way you flip the coin, I will let Israel act in what it thinks its own best interests are. If they are in the right, well, I don't think this little deal has absolutely nullified the US capability of using force in that region of the world. If Israel is in the wrong, however, they can get themselves out of it too, if they can.

Not sure what translation of what you are referring but this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/02/iranian-presidents-comments-on-israel-are-latest-flashpoint-in-war-of-perceptions/) is pretty clear.

I am always puzzled as to why people try to downplay what Iran and Iranian officials say about Israel. To acknowledge this is not default support of Israel (as you seem to think I am doing here..........quite the contrary on a lot of issues). The point I was making is that what we (the west) think is really irrelevant if Israel acts unilaterally the ramifications are potentially global. It is never as simple as saying that Israel is on its own. To do so is to ignore what is probably the most successful lobby in DC (and it isn't the NRA).

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 09:42 PM

Not sure what translation of what you are referring but this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/02/iranian-presidents-comments-on-israel-are-latest-flashpoint-in-war-of-perceptions/) is pretty clear.

I am always puzzled as to why people try to downplay what Iran and Iranian officials say about Israel. To acknowledge this is not default support of Israel (as you seem to think I am doing here..........quite the contrary on a lot of issues). The point I was making is that what we (the west) think is really irrelevant if Israel acts unilaterally the ramifications are potentially global. It is never as simple as saying that Israel is on its own. To do so is to ignore what is probably the most successful lobby in DC (and it isn't the NRA).

The article certainly proves the point that people often choose to make the translations much more aggressive-sounding than reality, which generally comes to light when you take the actual statements in context and translate the actual words. This is a fact that is not surprising to me at all, since media has enough trouble keeping in context statements that were made in the English language and prefer the furtherance of an agenda. I can't claim I would be greatly offended if Washington DC, for once, told a giant lobby to go suck an egg either, or something worse than an egg for that matter.

Israel does what it does, if they incite war, they'd best be able to back it up. Whereas if they're on the receiving end of violence, we would have every justification (if the American people agree) to stand beside them. This overseer of the entire Middle East we've tried to establish ourselves as is a load of bs.

CYBERFX1024

11-25-2013, 10:32 PM

After 30 plus years of mistrust between Iran and the U.S. this is a good first step. The thing the agreement does give both sides six months to see how each other lives up to the terms of the agreement. If both sides live up to their requirements then further talks can possibly lead to a deal which will allow Iran access to nuclear fuel to make electricity but will keep them from making a nuclear bomb through close inspections of their nuclear facilities.

That's all well and good. But they will NOT live up to any agreement that is signed and that's a fact. You can quote me for it and when can make a bet on it. They are the leading cause of terrorism in the Middle East, and they have Saudi Arabia so scared that they are working with Israel on military strikes. Another article has it that KSA has been trying to get tactical nukes from China, so that they can protect themselves.

CYBERFX1024

11-25-2013, 10:34 PM

I'm not sure if it will entirely eliminate the potential to weaponize (which I'm sure you didn't mean it as such either), but it certainly will increase the difficulty of doing so in secret by a margin. The big thing I do like about this (and despite the earlier ambiguity of getting discussion going, I do like this development quite a bit), is now at least there seems to be a vested interest in distinguishing this between energy production and weapon making by both sides of the discussion. While there are similarities with each I personally am not offended by the notion of Iran using Nuclear Power for energy production. This development could also enhance the Western influence happening inside that country (potentially) and maybe allow them to become more economically invested in things over here. Now, as far as weapons are concerned, I never really get comfortable with the idea of a nation feeling compelled to develop WMD's to gain a sort of standing on the international scene. I don't however believe that a Nuclear Weapon-capable Iran necessarily signifies World War 3.

The world has been pretty much in agreement that nuclear energy production is fine, but enriching uranium for the purposes of a bomb is bad. But Iran has been doing it anyway, and they don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Just look at what has been going on in Lebanon and Syria and you can they just don't give a damn what other people think.

AJBIGJ

11-25-2013, 10:55 PM

The world has been pretty much in agreement that nuclear energy production is fine, but enriching uranium for the purposes of a bomb is bad. But Iran has been doing it anyway, and they don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Just look at what has been going on in Lebanon and Syria and you can they just don't give a damn what other people think.

Doing things they feel is in their best interest in lieu of what everyone else would prefer hardly makes them unique in terms of world affairs.

TJMAC77SP

11-26-2013, 03:08 AM

The article certainly proves the point that people often choose to make the translations much more aggressive-sounding than reality, which generally comes to light when you take the actual statements in context and translate the actual words. This is a fact that is not surprising to me at all, since media has enough trouble keeping in context statements that were made in the English language and prefer the furtherance of an agenda. I can't claim I would be greatly offended if Washington DC, for once, told a giant lobby to go suck an egg either, or something worse than an egg for that matter.

Israel does what it does, if they incite war, they'd best be able to back it up. Whereas if they're on the receiving end of violence, we would have every justification (if the American people agree) to stand beside them. This overseer of the entire Middle East we've tried to establish ourselves as is a load of bs.

So, now matter what English translation from the original Farsi the answer will be that it's been parsed somehow. Well, I don't speak or read Farsi and my bet is neither do you so I guess we will have to let that discussion go.

While your argument of Israel on its surface makes sense it is specious. It is a common fallacy to paint the issues in the Mideast with two colors. As I said, I think any violent flare-up in the region be it against Iran or Israel, whether or not the US is initially involved or not spells great danger for escalation and therefore a direct threat to the US.

AJBIGJ

11-26-2013, 11:25 AM

So, now matter what English translation from the original Farsi the answer will be that it's been parsed somehow. Well, I don't speak or read Farsi and my bet is neither do you so I guess we will have to let that discussion go.

While your argument of Israel on its surface makes sense it is specious. It is a common fallacy to paint the issues in the Mideast with two colors. As I said, I think any violent flare-up in the region be it against Iran or Israel, whether or not the US is initially involved or not spells great danger for escalation and therefore a direct threat to the US.

There's a little more to it than just those two nations, however. First keep in mind, Israel does not stand alone as a nation that opposes the relaxation of sanctions, Saudi Arabia does that as well. I would say for the moment it makes the two not necessarily allies in the region but at least "allies of convenience". I'm pretty sure Turkey still isn't very interested in an empowered Iran either.

The problem many concern themselves as far as Iran is involved is how that country tends to meddle in the foreign affairs in other unstable nations in that region. (I won't go into who I think they learned that from)

This is an issue sure but I think that up until this point they've had a very good cover to be doing that, since it was often in counter to the Western influences in the region. If we continue to pull away from that, if Iran's policies are one of actual aggression rather than simply "aggressive defense" (which is what I believe to be most likely), they will no longer have that cover to use as an excuse. One doesn't have to be an expert in Arabian Muslim religion to understand that the major sect in power in the Iranian government is not universally well-received in the region, and the Iranians, (like ourselves) have had their hands and their resources in a lot of different places. If they don't want to be on bad terms with many or all of those countries, they will have to reign in their involvements as well.

While no outcome really would fit the mold of "ideal" in this contingency, I find it a far more preferable solution to have Iran's neighbors keeping Iran in check over ourselves trying to fill that role and being the primary focus of ire to their neighbors.

If this contingency is not the case and my analysis about Iran's foreign policy being one of "aggressive defense" rather than purely "aggression", well, this gives Iran an excuse to ramp it back down a bit and enjoy some of their newfound economic autonomy in the region. If this is the case, unless Iran itself is attacked by some foreign power, it will probably continue to taper off and while I don't expect to enjoy US/Iran relations as something resembling US/Great Britain any time soon, I can see them moving closer to say US/China relations as Iran itself develops some economic interdependencies with other nations throughout the world. McDonald's diplomacy at its finest.

TJMAC77SP

11-26-2013, 01:14 PM

There's a little more to it than just those two nations, however. First keep in mind, Israel does not stand alone as a nation that opposes the relaxation of sanctions, Saudi Arabia does that as well. I would say for the moment it makes the two not necessarily allies in the region but at least "allies of convenience". I'm pretty sure Turkey still isn't very interested in an empowered Iran either.

The problem many concern themselves as far as Iran is involved is how that country tends to meddle in the foreign affairs in other unstable nations in that region. (I won't go into who I think they learned that from)

This is an issue sure but I think that up until this point they've had a very good cover to be doing that, since it was often in counter to the Western influences in the region. If we continue to pull away from that, if Iran's policies are one of actual aggression rather than simply "aggressive defense" (which is what I believe to be most likely), they will no longer have that cover to use as an excuse. One doesn't have to be an expert in Arabian Muslim religion to understand that the major sect in power in the Iranian government is not universally well-received in the region, and the Iranians, (like ourselves) have had their hands and their resources in a lot of different places. If they don't want to be on bad terms with many or all of those countries, they will have to reign in their involvements as well.

While no outcome really would fit the mold of "ideal" in this contingency, I find it a far more preferable solution to have Iran's neighbors keeping Iran in check over ourselves trying to fill that role and being the primary focus of ire to their neighbors.

If this contingency is not the case and my analysis about Iran's foreign policy being one of "aggressive defense" rather than purely "aggression", well, this gives Iran an excuse to ramp it back down a bit and enjoy some of their newfound economic autonomy in the region. If this is the case, unless Iran itself is attacked by some foreign power, it will probably continue to taper off and while I don't expect to enjoy US/Iran relations as something resembling US/Great Britain any time soon, I can see them moving closer to say US/China relations as Iran itself develops some economic interdependencies with other nations throughout the world. McDonald's diplomacy at its finest.

I am not sure what in my remarks led you to believe that I think there are only two players in the region. Unless that was just a lead in to your point. I have consistently pointed out the complexity of the situation in the region. I learned first hand the fallacy of tossing off simple solutions and two-dimensional viewpoints of the many players.

I disagree with your analysis of 'aggressive-defense' unless you think decades of arming Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas as well as their very aggressive actions in Iraq are merely defensive.

You seem to want to expand single points originally raised, in this case Iran's demonstrated aggression and unstable diplomacy, and widen the discussion to points which haven't been raised. Of course it does give you the opportunity to slip in missives like "I won't go into who I think they learned that from". But hardly addresses the issue. An argument could be made of the comparative breadth of history of the west vs. the Mideast and who learned from whom but that would again be widening the discussion.

JoeB used to make the argument that painted Iran as a misunderstood nation, merely wanting to get along with everybody. This just isn't true. That is not to say that we shouldn't give diplomacy (to include this latest flawed agreement) a chance but pardon my pessimism about its ultimate value. This is a country where routine protests have thousands of young people volunteering (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4127886/70000-Iranian-students-volunteer-to-carry-out-suicide-bombings-in-Israel.html) to act as suicide bombers against Israel. Of course, this is rank propaganda but the telling point is that the government of Iran makes no comment about this. You still want to count Iran as a stable country only interested in ‘aggressive-defense’? Still want to argue about translations of official Iranian statements? Come on!

MitchellJD1969

11-26-2013, 01:17 PM

Yet another "accomplishment" that will come and bite us in the ass later on.

AJBIGJ

11-26-2013, 03:46 PM

I am not sure what in my remarks led you to believe that I think there are only two players in the region. Unless that was just a lead in to your point. I have consistently pointed out the complexity of the situation in the region. I learned first hand the fallacy of tossing off simple solutions and two-dimensional viewpoints of the many players.

I disagree with your analysis of 'aggressive-defense' unless you think decades of arming Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas as well as their very aggressive actions in Iraq are merely defensive.

You seem to want to expand single points originally raised, in this case Iran's demonstrated aggression and unstable diplomacy, and widen the discussion to points which haven't been raised. Of course it does give you the opportunity to slip in missives like "I won't go into who I think they learned that from". But hardly addresses the issue. An argument could be made of the comparative breadth of history of the west vs. the Mideast and who learned from whom but that would again be widening the discussion.

JoeB used to make the argument that painted Iran as a misunderstood nation, merely wanting to get along with everybody. This just isn't true. That is not to say that we shouldn't give diplomacy (to include this latest flawed agreement) a chance but pardon my pessimism about its ultimate value. This is a country where routine protests have thousands of young people volunteering (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4127886/70000-Iranian-students-volunteer-to-carry-out-suicide-bombings-in-Israel.html) to act as suicide bombers against Israel. Of course, this is rank propaganda but the telling point is that the government of Iran makes no comment about this. You still want to count Iran as a stable country only interested in ‘aggressive-defense’? Still want to argue about translations of official Iranian statements? Come on!
If you are looking for someone to regurgitate JB talking points you are looking in the wrong place, the place I come from is basic Sam Adams.

Iran is certainly not "stable" as such, I find very few Middle Eastern countries ever do hold that distinction for very long. I only have what you wrote to go on and you stated quite clearly you think this will eventually wind up being a showdown between the two participants that will domino into a global war. I would never claim as such it is impossible for that situation to develop. I do however, think we have to factor in the global politics of every other potential participant in that region who have been putting up with all of those "aggressive" actions you have identified. Which I believe are in part a factor of the mindset "the best defense is a good offense". I think Iran's participation in part is due to the fact that it keeps the Western influences in the region distracted somewhat and quite possibly gives it some potential allies nearby in the future. I don't so much think they find an "Iranian global empire" to be very realistic on the near term (if they're at all pragmatic, and usually someone in the advisory capacity generally is in even the worst regimes). I do however, think they would find a "buffer" of other nations to be quite useful if/when we the Western influences actually carry out the threats WE'VE been making for quite some time now. That is my meaning when I describe something as an "aggressive defense". They want and desire the level of ambiguity that keeps us from attacking haphazardly (because we do not perceive them as weak) but knowing full well they do not have the strength of arms to challenge us directly. This is nothing about mirror imaging of motives or emotions, it's simple math and logic that is quite universal. This isn't to say they'd never want a global empire as such, but they are far from having the capability or opportunity to drive towards that openly without being smacked back into the stoneage by those among us who would prefer that not happen.

I do think we lack understanding of Iran's motives because most of us do not understand fully what drives a Shia-based Theocracy or how/when they appeal to Sharia Law over more secular goals. This isn't to say I find their current intentions all so friendly towards the western world, in a simple deadly force triangle, it's mostly opportunity and capability holding them back. What they do have to drive the intent is a continuing scapegoat for the blame for everything that ales them. A major source of their sustainability under their economic conditions is that they do have the ability to point the finger at sanctions and western aggression as the source of the oppressive environment. I think when allowed to "get their way a little bit" a lot of this will break down
if they continue to oppress rather than move economically towards prosperity. To do the latter they will inevitably have to work with other countries in the region and inevitably the Western nations as well. After doing so, after developing economic interdependencies, it becomes very much more difficult to initiate aggression from the force of arms. Not impossible as such, but to do so drives the cost very much higher than would typically be the case for an economically isolationist, politically oppressive regime.

LogDog

11-26-2013, 06:15 PM

That's all well and good. But they will NOT live up to any agreement that is signed and that's a fact. You can quote me for it and when can make a bet on it. They are the leading cause of terrorism in the Middle East, and they have Saudi Arabia so scared that they are working with Israel on military strikes. Another article has it that KSA has been trying to get tactical nukes from China, so that they can protect themselves.
No, what you are giving is an opinion that they will not live up to any agreement, not a fact.

As I said it is a first step towards establishing trust. If they don't live up to their responsibilities in the agreement then they know increased sanctions will be imposed which will further hurt them economically. If they hold to the agreement then additional issues such as support of terrorist can also be addressed.

I remember when Egypt and Israel signed their peace treaty in the late 70s many people with your attitude expressed "Egypt will not live up to the agreement" were proved wrong. Let's give this agreement a chance to work.

TJMAC77SP

11-26-2013, 10:24 PM

If you are looking for someone to regurgitate JB talking points you are looking in the wrong place, the place I come from is basic Sam Adams.

Iran is certainly not "stable" as such, I find very few Middle Eastern countries ever do hold that distinction for very long. I only have what you wrote to go on and you stated quite clearly you think this will eventually wind up being a showdown between the two participants that will domino into a global war. I would never claim as such it is impossible for that situation to develop. I do however, think we have to factor in the global politics of every other potential participant in that region who have been putting up with all of those "aggressive" actions you have identified. Which I believe are in part a factor of the mindset "the best defense is a good offense". I think Iran's participation in part is due to the fact that it keeps the Western influences in the region distracted somewhat and quite possibly gives it some potential allies nearby in the future. I don't so much think they find an "Iranian global empire" to be very realistic on the near term (if they're at all pragmatic, and usually someone in the advisory capacity generally is in even the worst regimes). I do however, think they would find a "buffer" of other nations to be quite useful if/when we the Western influences actually carry out the threats WE'VE been making for quite some time now. That is my meaning when I describe something as an "aggressive defense". They want and desire the level of ambiguity that keeps us from attacking haphazardly (because we do not perceive them as weak) but knowing full well they do not have the strength of arms to challenge us directly. This is nothing about mirror imaging of motives or emotions, it's simple math and logic that is quite universal. This isn't to say they'd never want a global empire as such, but they are far from having the capability or opportunity to drive towards that openly without being smacked back into the stoneage by those among us who would prefer that not happen.

I do think we lack understanding of Iran's motives because most of us do not understand fully what drives a Shia-based Theocracy or how/when they appeal to Sharia Law over more secular goals. This isn't to say I find their current intentions all so friendly towards the western world, in a simple deadly force triangle, it's mostly opportunity and capability holding them back. What they do have to drive the intent is a continuing scapegoat for the blame for everything that ales them. A major source of their sustainability under their economic conditions is that they do have the ability to point the finger at sanctions and western aggression as the source of the oppressive environment. I think when allowed to "get their way a little bit" a lot of this will break down
if they continue to oppress rather than move economically towards prosperity. To do the latter they will inevitably have to work with other countries in the region and inevitably the Western nations as well. After doing so, after developing economic interdependencies, it becomes very much more difficult to initiate aggression from the force of arms. Not impossible as such, but to do so drives the cost very much higher than would typically be the case for an economically isolationist, politically oppressive regime.

So are you suggesting that if sanctions were lifted they would stop all this 'aggressive-defensive' behavior? Is that what you meant by 'get their way a little bit'?

AJBIGJ

11-27-2013, 12:54 AM

So are you suggesting that if sanctions were lifted they would stop all this 'aggressive-defensive' behavior? Is that what you meant by 'get their way a little bit'?

Hard to really predict what they will choose to do. However, whatever they do choose to do will no longer leave them with any excuse that they are "responding to our actions" when we subtract those actions from the equation. If their goals are, in the long term, to expand their influence in the region, they will have the burden of proof in convincing their neighbors "it is for their own good". We can see how well such a foreign policy has worked for us lately, and Iran is not offering what we're offering, in all frankness.

If their policy was to serve as an active deterrent for western influence, and that was all, there will be little recourse once we transition away from the region to do likewise, or be accused of the former situation. Any perception of "benevolent defender" would very quickly disappear when there is no longer a reviled aggressor to be concerned with. This is not even part of the deal that was made, the deal that was made only gave essentially a 6 month suspension of sanctions, pending good behavior. I agree strongly with some of what may be called the "left leaning" posters that this is good step in the right direction, for a distant road ahead to de-escalation.

TJMAC77SP

11-27-2013, 04:20 AM

Hard to really predict what they will choose to do. However, whatever they do choose to do will no longer leave them with any excuse that they are "responding to our actions" when we subtract those actions from the equation. If their goals are, in the long term, to expand their influence in the region, they will have the burden of proof in convincing their neighbors "it is for their own good". We can see how well such a foreign policy has worked for us lately, and Iran is not offering what we're offering, in all frankness.

If their policy was to serve as an active deterrent for western influence, and that was all, there will be little recourse once we transition away from the region to do likewise, or be accused of the former situation. Any perception of "benevolent defender" would very quickly disappear when there is no longer a reviled aggressor to be concerned with. This is not even part of the deal that was made, the deal that was made only gave essentially a 6 month suspension of sanctions, pending good behavior. I agree strongly with some of what may be called the "left leaning" posters that this is good step in the right direction, for a distant road ahead to de-escalation.

I am assuming with a lot of words that was a 'yes' answer.

Have to disagree with you again. Their actions, pre-sanctions speak pretty clearly. We can all hope that this utopian thought process prevails.

This discussion does impart a feeling of deja vu to me.

AJBIGJ

11-27-2013, 11:22 AM

I am assuming with a lot of words that was a 'yes' answer.

Have to disagree with you again. Their actions, pre-sanctions speak pretty clearly. We can all hope that this utopian thought process prevails.

This discussion does impart a feeling of deja vu to me.

I think we agree there are multiple interpretations of what the actions Iran was taking could mean. Any of which could also be correct or incorrect.

Regardless, if purile aggression is the expected outcome, they have six months before the noose tightens back up again. I'm hoping (and I do admit it is a hope) that pragmatism and logical response to the economic improvements (that Iran does fairly desperately need, do I need to cite any economic journals to prove such?) win the day (as it often does) and they get so much invested in the global economy, to detach themselves from it will in itself be a crippling blow. Either way, the ball is in their court to enjoy the autonomy or blow it. I do not fear the outcome will become so severe that it cannot be contained once again in that limited a period of time.

CYBERFX1024

11-27-2013, 02:31 PM

No, what you are giving is an opinion that they will not live up to any agreement, not a fact.
As I said it is a first step towards establishing trust. If they don't live up to their responsibilities in the agreement then they know increased sanctions will be imposed which will further hurt them economically. If they hold to the agreement then additional issues such as support of terrorist can also be addressed.
I remember when Egypt and Israel signed their peace treaty in the late 70s many people with your attitude expressed "Egypt will not live up to the agreement" were proved wrong. Let's give this agreement a chance to work.

Establishing Trust? Do you know how many Americans that the Iranians and Iranian supplied/supported militias in Iraq killed? But you probably think that they weren't in Iraq, that the border was closed. That border was porous enough that people snuck over all the time.

Actually it is fact and not opinion. Iran is the LEADING backers of terrorism in the Middle East right now. Their tentacles stretch pretty long, you can see them in Lebanon, Syria, KSA, and Bahrain. Why don't you go out and actually read the Middle Eastern newspapers like Al Arabiya, Gulf Times, Al Jazeera.

They are already fighting about wording on the agreement that was put out the other day, so how can they actually live up to it. Another aspect of this is that Sec. of State is dealing with Rouhani which is the Iranian President. He is literally and figuratively a puppet to the Ayatollah Khamenei, whatever Khamenei says he has to follow. If he doesn't follow it then he will wind up like the last president of Iran did, out of a job.

That scenario is far different than what happened in Egypt decades ago. First off Egypt was run by a dictator who did whatever he wanted anyway. So it didn't matter what anyone else thought. It also had a wide array of support back at home in Egypt.

So basically your assumption is that you support terrorists and the states that finance them.

3639

TJMAC77SP

11-27-2013, 08:31 PM

I remember when Egypt and Israel signed their peace treaty in the late 70s many people with your attitude expressed "Egypt will not live up to the agreement" were proved wrong. Let's give this agreement a chance to work.

Well, evidently there was enough of a doubt about both parties that the Multinational Force and Observers was formed and is still in place in the Sinai.

Any deal that does not include enough of a positive verification process will fail.

LogDog

11-27-2013, 09:01 PM

Establishing Trust? Do you know how many Americans that the Iranians and Iranian supplied/supported militias in Iraq killed? But you probably think that they weren't in Iraq, that the border was closed. That border was porous enough that people snuck over all the time.
And how many Iranians were killed by Americans who supplied/supported militias that were fighting against the Iranian regime? Please don't be so naive to think we aren't covertly providing Iranians who oppose the Iran government weapons. The point is the U.S. and Iran and wary of each other for good reasons. But that doesn't mean it has to stay that way. The problem is how do you come to agreement with someone you don't trust? You start small by establishing expectations, imitating procedures to ensure both sides are adhering to the agreement, and rewards when both sides meet the expectations of the agreement. I'm sure you've worked with someone you couldn't trust but you came to an agreement that would let you both perform your job and complete your mission. It's basically the same thing except on an international level.

Actually it is fact and not opinion. Iran is the LEADING backers of terrorism in the Middle East right now. Their tentacles stretch pretty long, you can see them in Lebanon, Syria, KSA, and Bahrain. Why don't you go out and actually read the Middle Eastern newspapers like Al Arabiya, Gulf Times, Al Jazeera.
What I referred to was you said the plan would fail and that is an opinion because the agreement has just been signed and neither side has yet to fail to uphold their end of the agreement. If Iran fails to adhere to the agreement then their failure would be a fact, not an opinion. Do you comprehend this?

They are already fighting about wording on the agreement that was put out the other day, so how can they actually live up to it. Another aspect of this is that Sec. of State is dealing with Rouhani which is the Iranian President. He is literally and figuratively a puppet to the Ayatollah Khamenei, whatever Khamenei says he has to follow. If he doesn't follow it then he will wind up like the last president of Iran did, out of a job.
If Rouhani has the authority to sign the agreement on behalf of Iran then the agreement is binding on Iraq as if Khamenei himself signed the agreement.

That scenario is far different than what happened in Egypt decades ago. First off Egypt was run by a dictator who did whatever he wanted anyway. So it didn't matter what anyone else thought. It also had a wide array of support back at home in Egypt.
Egypt and Israel had decades of mistrust to overcome to sign the Camp David Accords which is similar to the situation today with Iran and the rest of the world. Yes, Sadat was a dictator but in the paragraph you wrote above you're saying Khamenei is a dictator too. But the point being is both Egypt and Israel took the steps to overcome their mistrust of each other and that has lasted to the present, even after the events in Egypt over the past 2 years.

So basically your assumption is that you support terrorists and the states that finance them.

3639
What a jackass statement. Please show me where I said I support terrorists and the states that finance them. You can't because I never said or implied that. What I said was I support the attempt to overcome the mistrust on both sides by agreeing to terms of the agreement that each have to live up to, incentives to encourage the Iranians, and rewards if the Iranians do live up to them. If they don't live up to them, then not only will those portions of the sanctions that were eased be reinstated but addition sanctions will also be imposed.

LogDog

11-27-2013, 09:04 PM

Well, evidently there was enough of a doubt about both parties that the Multinational Force and Observers was formed and is still in place in the Sinai.

Any deal that does not include enough of a positive verification process will fail.
I agree, that is why inspectors will be able to make daily inspection of all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

TJMAC77SP

11-27-2013, 11:49 PM

I agree, that is why inspectors will be able to make daily inspection of all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

Well, my actual point was in challenging your characterization of the implementation of the Camp David Accords but……………..

Actually, no they will not have daily access to all Iranian nuclear facilities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/23/fact-sheet-first-step-understandings-regarding-islamic-republic-iran-s-n) (and that is ignoring the issue of Iran claiming the White House gave false details on the agreement).

Hopefully real change is coming but I disagree with "it's so 1979".............more like 2009. Still a big change in less than 5 years.

AJBIGJ

12-03-2013, 05:26 PM

Hopefully real change is coming but I disagree with "it's so 1979".............more like 2009. Still a big change in less than 5 years.

I wouldn't purport to speak for them, but it's actually why I believe lifting the sanctions, regardless of what else we get from the "deal" will pay dividends in the long run. Western style capitalism has a funny way of creeping into places one wouldn't normally expect, and when it does embed itself it becomes a whole degree more difficult to hate what they're benefitting from.

TJMAC77SP

12-03-2013, 07:24 PM

I wouldn't purport to speak for them, but it's actually why I believe lifting the sanctions, regardless of what else we get from the "deal" will pay dividends in the long run. Western style capitalism has a funny way of creeping into places one wouldn't normally expect, and when it does embed itself it becomes a whole degree more difficult to hate what they're benefitting from.

I wouldn't argue the inevitable spread of capitalism but I don't think anyone was asking you to speak for anyone else. I didn't understand the inclusion of that qualifier.

AJBIGJ

12-03-2013, 07:26 PM

I wouldn't argue the inevitable spread of capitalism but I don't think anyone was asking you to speak for anyone else. I didn't understand the inclusion of that qualifier.

My guess would be historic events, 1979 was a fairly big year in terms of the history of US/Iran relations.

TJMAC77SP

12-03-2013, 10:08 PM

My guess would be historic events, 1979 was a fairly big year in terms of the history of US/Iran relations.

Still don't get the reference to you speaking for anyone.

I got the author's point I simply argue at its accuracy as far as the timeline of hate. I wouldn't want anyone to think that since 1979 was mentioned that the hate has been diminishing since that year. That would be wholly inaccurate.

AJBIGJ

12-03-2013, 10:56 PM

Still don't get the reference to you speaking for anyone.

I got the author's point I simply argue at its accuracy as far as the timeline of hate. I wouldn't want anyone to think that since 1979 was mentioned that the hate has been diminishing since that year. That would be wholly inaccurate.
My only meaning is that anything I have to speak towards regarding the article's usage of the year 1979 is only speculation on my end, and not derived in fact.

TJMAC77SP

12-03-2013, 11:17 PM

My only meaning is that anything I have to speak towards regarding the article's usage of the year 1979 is only speculation on my end, and not derived in fact.